Don't Tell Me the Moon is Shining

[T.Allen.Smith]

Description that makes me feel like I'm there, with the character, is what I enjoy as a reader. There's no one way to accomplish that feat. Considering Rowling's writing, a lot of her description is necessary to invoke a sense of wonder in the reader (same as HP when he sees them), the twisting staircases & paintings which come alive for example. In Abercrombie''s writing, his minimalist approach, focusing on a few key points of setting works just as well, but in a different fashion. There the reader has more discretion to build the imagery of setting. However, since his settings are not so uncommon as Rowling's, minimalist description works.

Regardless of the effect the writer is trying to stir in the reader, there is a commonality....the reader should feel a part of the happenings.

"Good writing is supposed to evoke sensation.... Not the fact that it is raining, but the feeling of being rained upon. - E.L. DOCTOROW

 

[Steerpike]

I'm of the same view as T.Allen.Smith. A newspaper article can convey the facts of a story. I want something presented in the characteristic style of the author that does more than simply tell the story.

 

[Shockley]

The question being: what IS the story? To different readers it will be different things.

I think this is a good place to bring up Orson Scott Card's M.I.C.E quotient... Some stories are about Milieu, some about Idea, others about character and well, some about Events.
M.I.C.E. QUOTIENT

What you stated with 'I need the story' would likely be something between Character and Event.

That depends entirely on what the story is - if the story is about a bunch of people who have been kidnapped and taken to Fantasy Mars, then feel free to take some time to develop the environment, the fauna, the flora, etc. It's not something I know so I don't particularly mind being taken down that road. If your story is a guy in a forest, well, I know what a tree looks like.

Here's my basic philosophy: Imagine you are sitting down with a friend and telling him a story. You have to entertain, get the point across and make sure he doesn't want to run off to some other story teller. If you sit there telling your friend what a flower looks like, he's going to go elsewhere.

 

[wordwalker]

In other words, style.

Not "this story is more __" because different writers can tell the same story different ways, even if some concepts are more obviously alien than others-- and that can mean different levels of detail on different things. Some pull it off well, and some readers just prefer more or less detail anyway.

The real question is, what makes more-detailed or less-detailed description work, and maybe how a writer could decide when to use which.

 

[Chessie]

My objection here is that most fantasy writers are not working in a world where every tree, flower, etc. is so uniquely different from the ones on Earth that they need in-depth description. For most writers and readers, a forest is a forest is a forest. I think, that by being sparse with your words and packing as much meaning as you can into every single one of them you can write a much better story

OK, but we're taking this a bit far by using flowers and trees as the objects of description. Some things need more description than others. Characters, for example, require more attention because they are at the center of the story vs a flower.

I (kindly) disagree with short precise words all the time. Descriptions should add in feeling and vibe to the story. Too much is too much, but short and precise can leave a scene void of feeling if done poorly. Its all a balancing act. I think a well written paragraph can do more than 3 paragraphs about the same thing.